Falling over ourselves to follow the leader: conceptualizing connections between transformational leader behaviors and dysfunctional team conflict.

Whereas cognitive conflict is positively linked to the performance of decision-making teams, affective conflict has negative implications for performance. Affective conflict tends to negatively impact affective outcomes, such as commitment, acceptance, and satisfaction (Jehn, 1994, 1995; Wall & Callister, 1995). The negative effect of affective conflict on decision commitment is likely to be mediated by team members' willingness as well as perceptions of their ability to continue working together to implement the decision (Jehn, Chadwick, & Thatcher, 1997).

Affective conflict can foster cynicism, distrust, avoidance, and even hostility among team members, thereby eroding commitment to the decision as individuals disassociate themselves from the team's actions or, worse yet, triggering a desire to undermine the team's efforts (Amason et al., 1995). Similarly, justice research has shown that perceptions of inconsiderate interpersonal treatment, which are likely to occur during affective conflict, can lead to dissatisfaction, unwillingness to maintain a positive relationship, and a lower level of commitment (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). It is also feasible that affective conflict's negative impact on commitment is mediated by team members' perceptions of decision quality (Jehn et al., 1997). These perceptions may or may not accurately reflect the actual decision quality. For example, Jehn et al. (1997) found nearly zero correlation between perceived and objective measures of performance. Inaccurate perceptions can develop from affective conflict triggering negative affective reactions to the team interaction, which in turn can negatively bias team members' perceptions of decision quality (Jehn et al., 1997).

Affective conflict can negatively affect the actual decision quality (Amason, 1996; Janssen et al., 1999; Jehn, 1997) by obstructing open communication; reducing the capacity of team members to perceive, process, and evaluate new information; and consuming the time and energy preserved for working on the substantive decision task (Eisenhardt, 1997). Hostility and suspicion can cause team members to reject each others' arguments and points of view and lower quality outcomes (Tjosvold, 1998). This dynamic can not only hinder the team's ability to adequately complete each step in the decision-making process but can completely corrupt the process by destroying the team's motivation to carry out certain steps altogether (e.g., evaluation of alternatives) to avoid conflict. The tendency for conflict to flare up and to result in dysfunctional outcomes is regarded as a serious problem by some authors (e.g., Wall & Callister, 1995). Consequently, a central role of the leader is to inhibit the presence of affective conflict in addition to stimulating the generation of cognitive conflict.

The Link Between Cognitive and Affective Conflict

The research has yet to adequately address the link between cognitive conflict and affective conflict but it is believed that affective conflict tends to emerge when instances of cognitive conflict somehow become corrupted (Amason et al., 1995). This corruption can largely be attributed to perceptions of the conflict and how such perceptions trigger negative emotions. Specifically, such instances of corruption seem to stem from (a) perceived personal insult or threat and (b) frustration with the interaction.

The literature on emotion is consistent with these observations and is useful in explaining how emotions get aroused. Emotions have been viewed as internal mental states focused on affect (Clore, Ortony, & Foss, 1987). Of the four general perspectives on emotion--Darwinian, Jamesian, cognitive, and social constructivist--the cognitive perspective is considered to be dominant (Cornelius, 1996). The essence of cognitive approach is that emotion is a function of judgment about how the environment affects the individual (Lazarus, 1991). The way people make appraisals about the meaning of the situation determines their emotional state (Schachter & Singer, 1962).

Several researchers have suggested that purely cognitive conflict can turn into affective conflict when cognitive disagreements are perceived as personal criticism or disrespect (Amason, 1996; Eisenhardt et al., 1997b). This is particularly likely to occur when task-related disagreements generate emotionally harsh remarks or comments that can be viewed as a personal attack (Ross, 1989). Once triggered, affective conflict feeds on emotion and can create dysfunctional conflict cycles whereby negative emotions feed back on cognitions to produce cognitive simplification, reduced trust, and negative construal of each other's behavior (Thomas, 1992).

The research has also considered how perceptions of frustration in team discussions can trigger negative emotions. An assessment that an event frustrates or thwarts one's ability to attain a goal elicits anger (Lazarus, 1991). Cognitive conflict can readily be misperceived as causing frustration of task-related goals (Schweiger, Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986). One team member can become angry at another for frustrating his or her goals. This can occur when the other team member puts up a good fight and effectively thwarts one's own efforts. This can also occur when another team member cannot justify his or her preferences but continues to maintain a particular position (Brehmer, 1976). Such behavior tends to create frustration, distrust, and suspicion among team members who hold differing opinions and can lead to intense emotional conflict (R. A. Baron, 1984). For example, this scenario is likely to play out when intuitive decision making is used by some team members, which involves a nearly instantaneous recognition of complex patterns based on one's experiences (Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1990). An individual taking a position based on his or her intuition may not be able to explain the rationale behind the decision, and the lack of justification may create frustration in others or, worse, may look like a power play and result in opposition to perceived coercion or a bullying attempt.

In the context of a decision-making team, anger can develop in a number of ways. First, people are motivated to maintain a positive image of themselves (Aronson, 1992) but being involved in a debate of ideas (i.e., cognitive conflict) can have negative implications for self-image. Having one's opinions challenged can interfere with the goal of maintaining a positive self-concept. Consequently, people do not like to have their opinions strongly challenged by others and tend to react to any form of disagreement or questioning with frustration and anger (Ross, 1989; Schwenk, 1990), particularly if the other's comments can be interpreted as a personal insult (Wall & Callister, 1995). Janis (1982) explicitly warned of the potential dangers of using structured conflict: "Open criticism can ... lead to damaged feelings when the members resolutely live up to their role as critical evaluators and take each other's proposals over the bumps" (p. 263). Likewise, team members defending their positions tend to get attached to their points of view (Festinger, 1957) and may have difficulty distinguishing an attack on their position from an attack on their person. Moreover, a debate can be viewed as a direct comparison of one's abilities to those of the other team members, and losing at the debate can be hard on self-image. A threat to self-image is a powerful source of anger (Lazarus, 1991). In line with this thinking, Rancer, Kosberg, and Silvestri (1992) found that defensive self-enhancement is a powerful predictor of verbal aggressiveness.

Brett, Shapiro, and Lytle (1998) asserted that defending oneself against contentious tactics by reciprocating such behavior appears to be "a dominant, possibly even instinctual response" (p. 420). In a conflict cycle, negative emotions and cognitions interact, producing cognitive simplification. For example, individuals tend not to take into consideration the likely response of the other person to their contentious tactics (Walton, Cutcher-Gershenfeld, & McKersie, 1994). This kind of interaction causes a deterioration in relationships by replacing feelings of trust and goodwill with suspicion, aggression, and hostility (Allred, Mallozzi, Matsui, & Raia, 1997).

Once a relationship has acquired sufficient antagonism and hostility, negative relational attitudes can prompt more contentious behaviors (Pruitt, 1991) and, potentially, escalation of conflict (Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim, 1994; Walton et al., 1994). It may be an overwhelming task for a leader to reign in a team that has become overwrought with emotions and conflict. Moreover, if the task of the leader is to generate healthy debate, once affective conflict is triggered it may be too late to achieve this. The propensity of conflict escalation does not necessarily decline as team members develop stronger bonds (Wall & Callister, 1995).

Leader Behaviors and Team Conflict